search for: systemzpassconfig

...gt; writes: > Are you worried that adding it to PMB will increase compile time? > The pass exits very early for any target that doesn't opt-in to doing > scalarisation at the IR level, without even looking at the function. As an alternative, adding Scalarizer and InstCombine passes to SystemZPassConfig::addIRPasses() would probably give me most of the benefit without affecting the PMB. Scalarizer itself would then not test TargetTransformInfo at all, at least in the initial version, and the scalarisation would still logically be done by codegen. Would that be OK? Thanks, Richard

...u worried that adding it to PMB will increase compile time? >> The pass exits very early for any target that doesn't opt-in to doing >> scalarisation at the IR level, without even looking at the function. > > As an alternative, adding Scalarizer and InstCombine passes to > SystemZPassConfig::addIRPasses() would probably give me most of the > benefit without affecting the PMB. Scalarizer itself would then not > test TargetTransformInfo at all, at least in the initial version, > and the scalarisation would still logically be done by codegen. > Would that be OK? I actually...

...g it to PMB will increase compile time? >>> The pass exits very early for any target that doesn't opt-in to doing >>> scalarisation at the IR level, without even looking at the function. >> >> As an alternative, adding Scalarizer and InstCombine passes to >> SystemZPassConfig::addIRPasses() would probably give me most of the >> benefit without affecting the PMB. Scalarizer itself would then not >> test TargetTransformInfo at all, at least in the initial version, >> and the scalarisation would still logically be done by codegen. >> Would that be...

...rease compile time? >>>> The pass exits very early for any target that doesn't opt-in to doing >>>> scalarisation at the IR level, without even looking at the function. >>> >>> As an alternative, adding Scalarizer and InstCombine passes to >>> SystemZPassConfig::addIRPasses() would probably give me most of the >>> benefit without affecting the PMB. Scalarizer itself would then not >>> test TargetTransformInfo at all, at least in the initial version, >>> and the scalarisation would still logically be done by codegen. >>&gt...

Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> writes: >> I don't understand the basis for the last statement though. Do you mean >> that you think most cases produce better code if scalarised at the SD stage >> rather than at the IR level? Could you give an example? > > You presented an example that shows that scalarizing vectors allow > further optimizations. But I

Hi Richard, Thanks for working on this. Comments below. > I don't understand the basis for the last statement though. Do you mean > that you think most cases produce better code if scalarised at the SD stage > rather than at the IR level? Could you give an example? You presented an example that shows that scalarizing vectors allow further optimizations. But I don’t think that